Why didn't they just stick to CMT when it just werked instead

Intel had the same issues with their early SMT processors. Give it one or two patch tuesdays and Windows will have learned to deal with Ryzen.

>Why didn't they just stick to CMT when it just werked
It didn't werk. It was shit for single-threaded workloads

Retards and intel shills strategically hyped Ryzen up in the last few months. It was always meant to be as good as Broadwell-E. Not until the last few months did we see 'benchmark leaks' showing it had performance onpar with Skymeme and Babylake

Go have a look at this thread >>59227118
and tell me Ryzen is worthless when its beating quad-socket Intel Xeons.

And lastly. Stop posting fucking gayman benchamarks.

>>59227650
Don't fucking send them there, they'll just shit up the thread.

>>59227512
CMT was better, they should have stuck with it.

Imagine a 16 core ryzen.

>>59227512
>>59230440
because their SMT implementation is better than Intel's.

>>59230498
No but a 16 core ryzen (smaller integer cores) with 8 FPUs would be pretty neat. Same floating point performance as now but likely a 50% improvement in integer operations.

>>59230520
integer performance would suffer for the same reasons it suffered on bulldozer.

you'd need stupidly high clocks in order to reach performance parity with the wider cores of intel.

>>59230543
Yeah but more cores you fucking idiot